Re: From the Medics, Unhealthy Silence

From: kathleen (kathleen.dickson_at_snet.net)
Date: 03/23/05 

Date: 22 Mar 2005 22:20:59 -0800

Your jail fact-finding is pretty bad.

What neurological disorder?

Lyme treatment costs $12,000+ a month, and is a
disease that is identical to Multiple Sclerosis
and can cause Lou Gehrig's disease, and this is
FACTUAL.

You may not know that because Lyme is "controversial."

You really should check out the links I post, because
they are sound.

It's best to find out if you have Lyme, than
be treated for the wrong disease. See Georgia's
posts. I also recommend contacting either Pat Smith
at the Lyme Disease Association
http://www.lymediseaseassociation.org/
or here
http://www.ILADS.org
or here
http://www.columbia-lyme.org

The "Controversy"
http://www.columbia-lyme.org/flatp/controv.html

But we *do* have a definitive test- Yale's Borrelia
antiflagellin antibody test, or any borrelia specific
flagellin. It is just not used because it will find
Lyme in 95%-100% of the cases.

When the bad guys of Lyme want to find the spirochete
they use chromosomally incoded antigens. The current
Osps are useless, because of antigenic variation,
especially in Late Neurologic Lyme.

I hope this helps.

An outstanding article on the main problems with prisons
(too many people are in there, who are innocent):
http://www.courant.com/news/local/northeast/hc-deathpen0109.artjan09,0,5749037.story?coll=hc-utility-local-northeast

"I thought of this affair as the ultimate farce of Connecticut justice
until I involved myself in the more recent Haddam-Killingworth bus
arson case. The torching of $500,000 worth of school buses in 1994 led
police to a teenager named David Saraceno. A 10-hour, high-pressure
state police interrogation forced false admissions that were neither
written down at the time nor recorded.

Saraceno was convicted and imprisoned but later released after a
private investigation discovered that the prosecutor was protecting
four other young men who almost certainly did the crime. The chief
state's attorney's office uncomfortably joined the defense in a motion
to overturn Saraceno's conviction.

This should have freed the youth from further jeopardy. Instead, in
1999, under threat of extending the legal nightmare that had already
cost his parents $100,000, Saraceno accepted guilt for "hindering
prosecution by falsely confessing."

Under the statute of limitations, the state had allowed the five-year
window for prosecuting the known suspects to close. No one except the
wrong man did jail time for the crime.

The law officer most responsible for compelling Saraceno to declare it
was all his fault is Chief State's Attorney Christopher Morano. "

Kathleen

WitchWirsen wrote:
> Are ya joking Kathleen?
>
> I mean, seriuosly.
> Who would 'my' experts be?
>
> Secondly, I have just as many drug addict *** ups in my family as I
do good
> guys, and those that have spent time in jail, a good number of them,
get
> better health care than I do.
>
> One went out and pulled off some awesomely BAD robberies, went to
jail, got
> his teeth fixed, his meds, etc, all for free, meanwhile, I worked a
job that
> had no benefits and from Oct to Jan spent almost $11,000 trying to
get a
> diagnosis for a neurological disorder and pay for pain meds.
>
> Even John Gotti got better medical care while he was out there than I
have
> ever had.
> And Charles Manson.
> And many many more.
>
> Those ARE the facts.
>
> You might THINK that prison health care is atrocious, but you are
wrong.
>
> Do ya think it's a spiffy idea for us to incarcerate someone, say,
with
> AIDS, and spend several thousand per month on their helath care when
they
> have progressed to a point that medications really aren't going to
help them
> anymore?
>
> I don't know much about your 'lyme' crusade, but I know that if you
think
> inmates don't get good health care, you are wrong, and if you think
that the
> rest of us, especially those of us with little to no health care who
pay
> taxes to keep up those same inmates, appreciate the fact that inmates
are
> treated better than we are, you are mistaken.
>
> And that, dear, IS sticking to the FACTS.
>
> :)
> "kathleen" <kathleen.dickson@snet.net> wrote in message
> news:1111138734.060627.183280@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> No it ain't, it's totally true.
>
> And you can wait a year for a teeth cleaning.
> Everything I said about CT prisons is a FACT.
>
> If yours is a family filled with law enforcement, perhaps
> you could have your experts look at the Lyme racketeering
> fraud, and also the MMR induced vaccine damage.
>
> We *need* such courageous individuals fighting
> for the rights of sick people who are not criminals.
>
> Otherwise, chill out and stick to the facts.
>
> Kathleen
>
> WitchWirsen wrote:
> > You are full of ***.
> > Inmates get better medical care in the state of Missouri than
working
>
> > citizens who have committed no crimes.
> >
> > And coming from a family filled with law enforcement, and one LE of
> over 50
> > years, I resent your remarks about how they operate.
> > It's hogwash.
> >
> >
> > "kathleen" <kathleen.dickson@snet.net> wrote in message
> > news:1111095050.955861.131750@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > These questions need to be asked about American
> > prisons in general. They get notoriously bad healthcare
> > and dental care. If you have a crown that needs to be
> > finished, the dentists will offer you to have the tooth
> > pulled.
> >
> > The inmates die of HIV and no one cares, 85% of the
> > kitchen workers are HIV infected, and tuberculosis
> > is not uncommon.
> >
> > More than half the prisoners have no teeth. The only
> > medical care they get is Seroquel, mostly. If you are
> > injured, the medical staff laughs, and gives no treatment.
> >
> > No one cares if inmates don't survive. Think about it.
> > They don't care if you have doctor's orders or orders from
> > the court to be treated for anything. They deny you medical
> > care. Period.
> >
> > They don't report assaults to anyone. If one prisoner
> > attacks another, they turn a blind eye, and record that it
> > was a fight, even if it was not. They encourage the aggressors,
> > because the guards enjoy these fights. The mentality behind
> > that is that no one better the hell dare complain to any
> > authorities about what goes on in the prisons, and if they
> > think you might complain, they see to it, that you are
> > not protected from the real psychos there.
> >
> > In other words, they use the other violent prisoners as
> > an intimidation and punitive technique.
> >
> > This is not conjecture or hearsay.
> >
> > Kathleen
> >
> > georgia wrote:
> > > Washington Post
> > >
> > > >From the Medics, Unhealthy Silence
> > >
> > > By Stephen N. Xenakis
> > > Sunday, February 6, 2005; Page B04
> > >
> > > The recent confirmation hearings for attorney general nominee
> Alberto
> > > R. Gonzales and the trials of the soldiers accused of misconduct
at
> > Abu
> > > Ghraib have once again brought to the fore questions about the
use
> of
> > > torture in our war on terrorism. But one aspect that is never
> > mentioned
> > > -- one I believe is essential to consider -- are the actions or,
> more
> > > to the point, the apparent inaction of medical personnel at both
> > > Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib.
> > >
> > > Detention facilities like these typically have fully staffed
> clinics
> > > with primary care physicians, nurses and a host of other support
> > > personnel to treat American soldiers as well as detainees. Their
> > common
> > > duty -- from corpsmen with basic medical skills training to
> > physicians
> > > with leadership positions -- is to provide care according to high
> > > standards of medical practice to all who need it and, of course,
to
> > > report any signs of physical or psychological abuse.
> > >
> > >
> > > The Post's opinion and commentary section runs every Sunday.
> > >
> > > · Outlook Section
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _____Free E-mail Newsletters_____
> > >
> > > · Today's Headlines & Columnists
> > > See a Sample | Sign Up Now
> > > · Breaking News Alerts
> > > See a Sample | Sign Up Now
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > As a physician holding the title of brigadier general by the time
I
> > > retired in 1998, I directed major medical support efforts during
> the
> > > 1991 Gulf War and have seen the Army leadership up close. So, as
> the
> > > scandals at Abu Ghraib in Iraq and Guantanamo in Cuba unfolded, I
> > > wondered why we had heard so little from the medics. When faced
> with
> > > the twin pressures of performing their military duty and
providing
> > > treatment, did the staffs at these facilities turn a blind eye to
> the
> > > physical and mental torture inflicted on the prisoners, or
perhaps
> > even
> > > collude with interrogators? There are few other explanations for
> why
> > > they didn't report suspicious findings from the examinations of
the
> > > detainees. Unless, of course, those reports were suppressed.
> > >
> > > I've also wondered whether the senior medical leadership of the
> Army,
> > > Navy and Air Force knew of the abuses -- and whether their
reports
> > > could have been concealed.
> > >
> > > My growing concern has been reinforced by an appalling case of
glib
> > > reasoning, in which the office of the deputy assistant secretary
of
> > > defense for health affairs, as reported in a recent issue of the
> New
> > > England Journal of Medicine, has taken the position that the
> medical
> > > personnel at these facilities had not breached the Hippocratic
oath
> > > because there was not a recognized doctor-patient relationship.
The
> > > NEJM reported that the deputy assistant secretary endorsed the
view
> > > that some of the medics supporting interrogators in Iraq and
> > Guantanamo
> > > were operating outside the bounds of the doctor-patient
> relationship
> > > and were thus not required to abide by accepted ethical
guidelines.
> > >
> > > What precisely does this mean? That the prisoners were not being
> > billed
> > > by the medical personnel? That there were no neat files, none of
> > those
> > > signed privacy forms known as HIPAAs? Don't worry, the Defense
> > > Department seems to be saying, being a military physician doesn't
> > mean
> > > that you need to stick to the time-honored maxim of "First, do no
> > > harm"?
> > >
> > > Indeed, the same article noted that the office contended that the
> > > legitimate objective of fighting terrorism trumps the ethical
> > > responsibility of the healing practitioner. In other words, "the
> ends
> > > justify the means": A few brutalized prisoners is a small price
to
> > pay
> > > for protecting the citizens of the United States.
> > >
> > > According to this line of reasoning, military medical personnel
> > should
> > > put a higher priority on fighting the war against terrorism than
on
> > > abiding by the recognized ethical and moral principles of their
> > > profession. Moreover, no worries about potential malpractice
suits
> > need
> > > cloud their day; they can feel protected and relieved of the duty
> to
> > > exercise personal and individual responsibility.
> > >
> > > That's not how I was trained. I attended both college and medical
> > > school on Army scholarships during the turbulent years of Vietnam
> and
> > > the My Lai massacre, with cynicism over the practices in our
> military
> > > echoing in my ears. Fifteen years later, in 1989 and 1990, I
> attended
> > > the Army War College as a medical corps colonel. At all these
> > > institutions, clear parameters for conduct were laid out. The war
> > > colleges teach senior officers -- future generals and admirals --
> > that
> > > commanders are responsible for the ethical and moral climate of
> their
> > > units. They are also responsible for what the men and women who
> serve
> > > under them do and don't do.
> > >
> > > There is no escaping the fact that responsibility for the conduct
> of
> > > the medics at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib rests with the senior
> > > leadership of the medical departments. This leadership faced
tough
> > > questions from the outset of operations in both Afghanistan and
> Iraq
> > > about how medics were supposed to treat detainees; the burden of
> > > leadership is to ensure that high moral and ethical practices are
> > > maintained in even the most demanding situations.
> > >
> > > But there is not much evidence to show that the Defense
Department
> > > wrote out guidelines for adherence to the high standards. In
fact,
> > > there is only evidence to the contrary: There are few, if any,
> > reports
> > > from medics about detainee abuse and there is no sign of
inquiries
> or
> > > reviews of the policies and conduct of the medical teams at those
> > > facilities. But documents of testimony taken during investigation
> > into
> > > the abuses at Abu Ghraib recently released under the Freedom of
> > > Information Act and posted on the Web sites of the American Civil
> > > Liberties Union and Center for Public Integrity suggest that
> medical
> > > personnel were aware of abuses, may have witnessed some and may
> even
> > > have advised interrogators on the individual medical conditions
of
> > the
> > > prisoners and their vulnerabilities to specific stresses that
could
> > > induce them to disclose valuable intelligence -- actions that may
> > have
> > > bordered on torture.
> > >
> > > With disturbing echoes of unsavory regimes in history, medics
> > abdicated
> > > their responsibilities toward the detainees, their patients,
> instead
> > of
> > > making interrogations more humane, more in keeping with
> international
> > > standards of decency.
> > >
> > > Unlike soldiers, doctors have a duty to patients as well as
> country.
> > > That is what separates U.S. military physicians from the German
> > doctors
> > > who aided the Nazis in concentration camps or, in perhaps a
closer
> > > parallel, the South African prison doctors who examined
> > anti-apartheid
> > > leader Steve Biko (a fellow physician no less), filed incomplete
> > > reports, deferred to police interrogators and failed to stop the
> > brutal
> > > treatment that ended in Biko's death.
> > >
> > > But there is an even bigger failure to be reckoned with. These
are
> > > times when the country deserves great leadership, and that kind
of
> > > leadership anticipates the toughest problems. Military leaders
> should
> > > first have asked the hard questions about the ethical parameters
> > > guiding the conduct of medics and focused on the policies that
> > governed
> > > that conduct: What is the historical precedent; what are the best
> > ideas
> > > about the role of medics in this war; and what are the long-term
> > > consequences of their actions? For these leaders to speak up as
the
> > > scandals were investigated would have taken great courage --
> generals
> > > and admirals would have been forced to retire.
> > >
> > > But heroism is not just the stuff of the battlefield. Patients
> trust
> > > doctors, nurses and medics because they expect them to do what is
> > right
> > > -- to put the needs of others over their own. Nations expect
their
> > > generals to be bold and to take risks -- and to show moral
courage.
> > >
> > > Something doesn't smell right here, and it just may be an abscess
> of
> > > ethical lapses. While there can be long and learned legal
> discussions
> > > about the role of torture during wartime, the medical aspect of
> these
> > > discussions should be very brief: No doctor -- and no military
> > medical
> > > leader -- should participate in torture in any way. Either by
> > advising
> > > interrogators of prisoners' vulnerabilities or by simply doing
> > nothing,
> > > they did participate. And that says more about the problems of
> > military
> > > leadership than any memo on legal protections.
> > >
> > > Author's e-mail: snxen@aol.com
> > >
> > > Stephen N. Xenakis, a retired brigadier general with the U.S.
Army,
> > now
> > > works as a child and adolescent psychiatrist at the Psychiatric
> > > Institute of Washington.
> > >
> > >
> > > © 2005 The Washington Post Company

Quantcast